‘Slam Dunks’ Belong in Basketball, Not Intelligence-Gathering on Syria

Thanks to one of America’s great intelligence debacles, this is a phrase that deserves to go away. At least as far as military operations are concerned.

Miami Heat forward LeBron James does some LeBron James stuff, Thursday, June 7, 2012, in Boston.
National Journal
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Aug. 29, 2013, 5:10 a.m.

Some­times, sports meta­phors have ab­so­lutely no use. Thanks to some ig­noble his­tory with Ir­aq, this is firmly the case with call­ing in­tel­li­gence a “slam dunk.”

There’s a big story out from the As­so­ci­ated Press Thursday morn­ing that cites mul­tiple U.S. of­fi­cials say­ing that the in­tel­li­gence ty­ing Bashar al-As­sad’s re­gime to the re­cent al­leged chem­ic­al weapons at­tacks in Syr­ia is “not a slam dunk.” The story re­futes, through an­onym­ous sources at least, Pres­id­ent Obama’s claim on PBS Wed­nes­day night that his ad­min­is­tra­tion has “con­cluded that the Syr­i­an gov­ern­ment in fact car­ried these [chem­ic­al at­tacks] out.”

And there’s more from the AP on just what the U.S. doesn’t know:

In­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials say they could not pin­point the ex­act loc­a­tions of As­sad’s sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, and As­sad could have moved them in re­cent days as U.S. rhet­or­ic builds. That lack of cer­tainty means a pos­sible series of U.S. cruise-mis­sile strikes aimed at crip­pling As­sad’s mil­it­ary in­fra­struc­ture could hit newly hid­den sup­plies of chem­ic­al weapons, ac­ci­dent­ally trig­ger­ing a deadly chem­ic­al at­tack.

Which sounds like a de­light. The AP also says that a “quest for ad­ded in­tel­li­gence to bol­ster the White House’s case for a strike” is the reas­on that an in­tel­li­gence re­port has not yet been re­leased pub­licly.

The thing is, though, no amount of in­tel­li­gence is ever really a “slam dunk.” That’s be­cause a “slam dunk” be­longs in pro­fes­sion­al bas­ket­ball, not in in­tel­li­gence-gath­er­ing par­lance. Be­cause, some­times, when it shows up there, very bad things hap­pen.

Take former CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et. In Decem­ber 2002, as the ad­min­is­tra­tion of George W. Bush was look­ing in­to a pos­sible at­tack on Ir­aq, Ten­et told the pres­id­ent that “it’s a slam dunk case” that Sad­dam Hus­sein had weapons of mass de­struc­tion. The Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Bob Wood­ward said that, in an in­ter­view with the pres­id­ent, Bush told him that ” ‘slam dunk’ is, as I in­ter­preted it, a sure thing, guar­an­teed.” Ten­et, while he ad­mits to us­ing the phrase, doesn’t think it had — or de­served to have — much of an im­pact on the pres­id­ent’s think­ing.

In real-life sports, a slam dunk isn’t even guar­an­teed. Just ask Mi­chael Jordan. If you really need a bas­ket­ball ana­logy for a fool-proof thing, maybe try a lay­up. But even that can go wrong. And the over­use of “slam dunks” in sports ana­lo­gies is really rather lazy. Slam dunks may be the most ob­vi­ous go-to, flashy com­pon­ent of bas­ket­ball. But they’re by no means the most beau­ti­ful or ex­cit­ing part of the game.

But, really, if an in­tel­li­gence “slam dunk” is what led the U.S. to be­lieve there were weapons of mass de­struc­tion in Ir­aq, wouldn’t we all be bet­ter served by, you know, no more slam dunks? Based on re­cent his­tory, you could really make the case that not hav­ing slam dunk in­tel­li­gence in Syr­ia is ac­tu­ally a good thing. Which is con­fus­ing! 

This needs to be stopped. But luck­ily, there’s a pretty simple way of know­ing when you’ve cor­rectly slam-dunked.

If after dunk­ing, you look like this …

CIA Dir­ect­or George Ten­et be­fore the Sept. 11 Com­mis­sion on Cap­it­ol Hill Wed­nes­day, April 14, 2004. (AP Photo/Charles Dhar­apak)

… then you’ve done something ter­ribly wrong.

What you’re look­ing for is something a bit more like this:

Ok­lahoma City Thun­der point guard Rus­sell West­brook after dunk­ing the ball against the San Ant­o­nio Spurs dur­ing the first half of Game 6 in the NBA bas­ket­ball West­ern Con­fer­ence fi­nals, Wed­nes­day, June 6, 2012, in Ok­lahoma City. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
What We're Following See More »
IBD/TIPP Poll Shows a Dead Heat
1 hours ago

A new Investor’s Business Daily/TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence poll shows Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each earning 41% support. On the one hand, the poll has been skewing in Trump's favor this year, relative to other polls. But on the other, data guru Nate Silver called the IBD/TIPP poll the most accurate in 2012.

Come January Sanders Could Oppose Clinton from the Left
3 hours ago

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, a loyal soldier for Hillary Clinton since he conceded the Democratic presidential nomination in July, plans to push liberal legislation with like-minded senators with or without Clinton’s support if she is elected— and to aggressively oppose appointments that do not pass muster with the party’s left wing." Sanders and other similarly inclined senators are already "plotting legislation" on climate change, prison reform, the minimum wage, and tuition-free college.

McAuliffe Donated to FBI Official’s Wife
3 hours ago

"The political organization of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email use."

Curt Schilling to Launch Breitbart Radio Show
4 hours ago

Baseball great Curt Schilling says he still needs to clear a challenge to Sen. Elizabeth Warren with his wife, but in the meantime, he's found something to occupy him: the former hurler is going to host a daily online radio show on Breitbart.com. "The show marks Schilling’s return to media six months after ESPN fired him for sharing an anti-transgender Facebook post."

The New Yorker Endorses Clinton
5 hours ago

The New Yorker has endorsed Hillary Clinton, saying that "barring some astonishment," she will become the next president. Calling Clinton "distinctly capable," the magazine excoriates Donald Trump as a candidate who "favors conspiracy theory and fantasy, deriving his knowledge from the darker recesses of the Internet and 'the shows.'" Additionally, the historical nature of the possibility of "send[ing] a woman to the White House" is not lost on the editors, who note the possibility more than once in the endorsement.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.